Craig Blomberg in Craig L. Blomberg

9 years ago — Edited

A Messianic community requires instructions for how to live.  So the logical follow-up to the doctrine of the church in the teachings of Jesus is his ethics.  There are countless directions we could go at this point; let me just take one.  In what ways, if at all, are Christians supposed to act toward society?  Richard Niebuhr's famous taxonomy in the mid-20th century included Christ against culture, in culture, above or transcending culture, separate from culture, and transforming culture.  While cases have been made for all of these, it seems to me that Jesus' teaching can be summarized with the concept of the creation of small countercultural communities that remained interacting with culture sufficiently that they could be seen as a positive alternative (and therefore an implicit threat!) to the culture at large, especially that which Rome promoted or endorsed.  With so many themes and styles of Jesus' teaching carrying over from the OT prophets, I'm convinced that N. T. Wright has it right on this point.  The church should act as prophet to the king.  Like Nathan in the OT, who was apparently close enough to and respected enough by David that he earned the right to be severely critical of David's behavior when necessary, Christians must be involved in society enough to understand it well, be respected for their care for and commitment to it (whenever possible) and at least some of the time therefore gain credibility when they address its flaws, and have communities to point to as positive alternatives. So what does that mean on a very specific issue like, say, voting in the November presidential election?  It suggests to me that opting out of the process is not a Christian option.  Someone says, but I can't in good conscience vote for either main candidate; then what?  Vote for someone else and make your most informed choices for every other race and issue on the ballot.  Someone else says, it feels like I'll be voting for the lesser of evils--voting against one person rather than for anyone.  Yes, that is life in a fallen world.  The classic Christian ethical systems recognize that in many cases we make ethical decisions based on that which will do the least harm.  And, of course, we can never be one- or two-issue voters.  We must look at the potential ramifications for every significant area of domestic and foreign policy and weigh things against our values.  People like Ron Sider have for years now been lobbying for consistent pro-life positions, which means opposing abortion but also opposing war except as a very last resort, doing anything that will diminish the nuclear threat, supporting everything that can alleviate poverty and illness around the world, and so on.  No presidential candidate in my lifetime has come down on the Christian side on all of those issues--the Republicans tend to be noted for one set of reasonably biblical commitments but do horribly on others; the Democrats tend to be noted for another set of reasonably biblical commitments but do horribly on others.  So we must always vote candidate by candidate and issue by issue and never automatically vote a straight ticket for either party.  As someone who is scared to death of the lack of clear positions by Trump, the track record of changing them at a moment's notice, the utter lack of decency or civil discourse in the public square, the abominable sexism and racism, the fright of all my overseas friends on every continent in low and high places as to what could happen if he gets in power, I will be voting for Clinton, not because I agree with her views on abortion or homosexuality but because there's so much more to be concerned about in our world.  And besides, after 45 years of Republicans saying they are the best hope for overturning Roe v. Wade we are farther away than ever from doing that.  In less than 24 hours when Trump was challenged on what sounded like very right-wing views on the matter he backed way off of them so how is he likely to do anything? In my opinion, in light of everything Christians ought to care about in the world, which has a lot to do with the poor, dispossessed and marginalized, Trump must be stopped at virtually all costs.  He is a potential Hitler in the making, though not nearly as smart I don't think.  And the best way to stop him is to vote for the person most likely to win if he doesn't. So did I forget that this was supposed to be a post about Jesus' ethics?  No, his ethics have often been summed up as good news for the poor not for the wealthy.  It's true that certain kinds of free-market capitalism can help the poor, just as certain kinds of government intervention can, and most of all Christian church and parachurch involvement.  But those who have studied what has made the greatest difference typically recognize it must be a smart combination of all three--each doing what it can do best. Neil Postman's work of a generation ago is terrifyingly relevant in a world of "amusing ourselves to death."  So is Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, when entertainment became the top priority for many citizens.  Signs of the end of the American democratic experiment are surrounding us but I haven't lost hope yet.  Since the Scriptures teach that we cannot know the day, hour, week, month, year, or even generation of Christ's return, we dare not lapse into escapism that says Christ is just going to end it all soon.  We must work lovingly, shrewdly, true to our Christian convictions in hopes that America's true democratic strengths might be revived.  I also hear a lot of people criticize those of us who wax eloquent (or at least passionate!) about the political process by saying, "But of course we have to trust God as the one who is ultimately in charge," as if that were a reason for not worrying about who wins the election.  But why would anyone say that?  Of course we trust God, but that doesn't stop us from working hard to figure out the best schooling option for our kids, or the medical treatment to undergo or not undergo when we receive an alarming diagnosis, or countless other issues.  We learn all we can, make the most informed decisions possible, and trust God in it all.  I think one of the biggest reasons people default to some of these positions is because in a democracy the size that America has become, we feel like no one individual has any significant influence.  But if countless people who feel that way actually participated they could have significant influence.  And don't forget the Bush-Gore election and the hanging chads.  It is by no means impossible that this election could come down to an extremely close margin.  Let's not abdicate on our responsibilities!  If this doesn't generate more discussion than anything I've posted over the last year, then maybe I'll just stop this blog! :)